A clearer exposition is hard to think of. Really good rant, no fluff, no propaganda, just good natural sarcasm due to the subject itself. Unfortunately, Luddites have no sense of humor or self-awareness.
I buy all of this without reservation. I bite all the bullets.
And yet.
Suppose a man lives in an isolated house, with a beautiful view. He's lived there all his life.
And someone wants to build an eyesore there. A sewage works maybe.
The sewage works is built.
The man is really very hurt by this. He moves away, and finds another place to live. But he never feels at home again. He would have spent all his money to prevent it happening.
The greater good is served by the pain of an individual, who had something and now doesn't have it.
------------------------------------------------
Do you find this story psychologically plausible?
If he actually *owns* the land that the sewage works is built on, does that make a difference?
Should the state have the power to take his land against his will?
A nation trading raw goods for manufactured good will always be at a loss, since manufacturing a raw good multiplies its value 10x to sometimes even 100x. Raw wool is vastly cheaper than clothing. So a nation trading their wool for clothes will always remain subservient/at a disadvantage to the manufacturing nation.
So trading with foreign nations for raw goods with our manufactured goods is generally good. And vice versa is generally bad. Not all goods are created equal.
So, instead of trading Iowa grain for japanese cars, keep the grain (raw good) domestic, and buy cars from Detroit.
An old adage laments, 'They’ve got you coming and going.' Today’s protectionists have got us buying and selling. Any economic interaction with foreigners is a potential target of their childish wrath, without rhyme or reason."
The composition of the productive economy affects the political and cultural landscape. Countries focused on resource extraction (farming, mining, oil) almost universally lean towards corrupt oligarchical structures. The reason? Resource extraction doesnt require much labor nor a middle class, so the capital owners combine with the political class to subsidize the underclass via welfare as a cheap and affordable way to maintain their position of power. "Buying" vs "Selling" arent the issues here - its how economic structures alter power and class relationships. In the US in particular, trade deficits are offset by capital surpluses which has similarity to resource extraction in that producing capital assets is done by government, technology, and private equity with relatively little labor compared to manufacturing.
When you sell land to foreign speculators are you really "making" or exporting anything? It's a non fungible resource that is keystone to a thriving and vibrant local community. I live in NYC, and big parts of every high-rise sits unoccupied and half my block is boarded up brownstones, partly because some foreign oligarch decided it is a safer place to keep his money than a bank. They contribute nothing to the neighborhood. The negative externalities of this: urban blight, inflated housing prices, ghost neighborhoods, are not welcome by any of the actual people living here except maybe the developers. Why shouldn't a community manage it's affairs in a way that limits these externalities?
Rent control is your culprit, domestically-mandated rent control. I'd bet a paycheck more housing is empty because of rent control than foreign oligarchs.
Besides which, it ain't your property or your business what they do with their property. So butt out. Unless you think it would be just fine if domestic oligarchs told you what to do with your property.
Why are empty apartments worse if owned by foreigners instead of Americans? Do you realize that - absent building restrictions - demand for apartments makes more apartments get built?
And if you don't beleive that, why not just tax empty apartments?
A clearer exposition is hard to think of. Really good rant, no fluff, no propaganda, just good natural sarcasm due to the subject itself. Unfortunately, Luddites have no sense of humor or self-awareness.
The average American today has NO IDEA who/what the Luddites were, or are.
They don't understand calculus, the difference between diesel and gasoline engines, what a trade deficit is, or metric shoe sizes either.
I buy all of this without reservation. I bite all the bullets.
And yet.
Suppose a man lives in an isolated house, with a beautiful view. He's lived there all his life.
And someone wants to build an eyesore there. A sewage works maybe.
The sewage works is built.
The man is really very hurt by this. He moves away, and finds another place to live. But he never feels at home again. He would have spent all his money to prevent it happening.
The greater good is served by the pain of an individual, who had something and now doesn't have it.
------------------------------------------------
Do you find this story psychologically plausible?
If he actually *owns* the land that the sewage works is built on, does that make a difference?
Should the state have the power to take his land against his will?
Thank you, Mr. Bastiat. I know you've been at this for almost 200 years but somehow the message still needs repeating.
Hmmm. That picture of "Iowa plus Farmers plus Japan equals Vehicles" reminds me of a video I saw on YouTube many years ago . . .
This one here, in fact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXMnAPGY1uE
Major oversimplification of Protectionism.
A nation trading raw goods for manufactured good will always be at a loss, since manufacturing a raw good multiplies its value 10x to sometimes even 100x. Raw wool is vastly cheaper than clothing. So a nation trading their wool for clothes will always remain subservient/at a disadvantage to the manufacturing nation.
So trading with foreign nations for raw goods with our manufactured goods is generally good. And vice versa is generally bad. Not all goods are created equal.
So, instead of trading Iowa grain for japanese cars, keep the grain (raw good) domestic, and buy cars from Detroit.
Thereby bolstering our manufacturing industry.
An old adage laments, 'They’ve got you coming and going.' Today’s protectionists have got us buying and selling. Any economic interaction with foreigners is a potential target of their childish wrath, without rhyme or reason."
Why should it rhyme?
The composition of the productive economy affects the political and cultural landscape. Countries focused on resource extraction (farming, mining, oil) almost universally lean towards corrupt oligarchical structures. The reason? Resource extraction doesnt require much labor nor a middle class, so the capital owners combine with the political class to subsidize the underclass via welfare as a cheap and affordable way to maintain their position of power. "Buying" vs "Selling" arent the issues here - its how economic structures alter power and class relationships. In the US in particular, trade deficits are offset by capital surpluses which has similarity to resource extraction in that producing capital assets is done by government, technology, and private equity with relatively little labor compared to manufacturing.
When you sell land to foreign speculators are you really "making" or exporting anything? It's a non fungible resource that is keystone to a thriving and vibrant local community. I live in NYC, and big parts of every high-rise sits unoccupied and half my block is boarded up brownstones, partly because some foreign oligarch decided it is a safer place to keep his money than a bank. They contribute nothing to the neighborhood. The negative externalities of this: urban blight, inflated housing prices, ghost neighborhoods, are not welcome by any of the actual people living here except maybe the developers. Why shouldn't a community manage it's affairs in a way that limits these externalities?
Rent control is your culprit, domestically-mandated rent control. I'd bet a paycheck more housing is empty because of rent control than foreign oligarchs.
Besides which, it ain't your property or your business what they do with their property. So butt out. Unless you think it would be just fine if domestic oligarchs told you what to do with your property.
They pay for the property and they pay property taxes and don't use schools do you think that somehow they net out negative?
So… domestic oligarchs buying and keeping vacant high rises are OK? Not sure how you twist your logic against international trade.
Why are empty apartments worse if owned by foreigners instead of Americans? Do you realize that - absent building restrictions - demand for apartments makes more apartments get built?
And if you don't beleive that, why not just tax empty apartments?
No offense but that sounds like some commie gobbledygook